^{page 109 note 1} e.g. Vokes, F. E., The Riddle of the Didache. London, 1938Google Scholar; Giet, S., L’énigme de la Didache. Paris, 1970.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Epistle of Barnabas 18–20; cf. Robinson, J. A., Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache (Donnellan Lectures 1920). London, 1920Google Scholar; Muilenburg, J., I he Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Marburg, 1929Google Scholar; Connolly, R. H., ‘The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas’. JTS 33 (1932), 237–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, C., ‘The Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas’. Expositor 3 (1886), 401–428Google Scholar; ‘The Didache Compared with the Shepherd of Hermas’. JPh 18 (1890), 297–325.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Oxford, 1946, p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 4} Following the work of Taylor, C., Kohler, Kauf mann in Jewish Encyclopaedia 4. 585ff.Google Scholar speaks of a manual of instruction for proselytes, adopted from the Synagogue by Early Christianity, and transformed by alteration and aniplitication into a Church manual.

^{page 110 note 5} e.g. John 5.20–6; 4.14; 6.50–1; 17.26.

^{page 110 note 6} Revelation 1.8; 4.11. The case fora liturgical interpretation is often overstated, particularly by Laeuchli, S., ‘Eine Gottesdienststruktur in der Johannesoffenbarung’. TZ 16 (1960), 359–378Google Scholar; Shepherd, M. H., The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse. London, 1960Google Scholar; Torrance, T. F., ‘Liturgy and Apocalypse’. Church Service Society Annual of the Church of Scotland, May 1954 (French — Verbum Caro 11.41 (1957), 28–40).Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 7} I Corinthians 12.28; Didache II.

^{page 111 note 8} Matthew 6.9–13; Didache 8.2. Didache reads ‘heaven’ for ‘heavens’, an alternative form of the imperative ending—‘come’, a singular noun for ‘debt’ in place of the plural ‘debts’, and the present tense ‘we forgive’ in place of ‘have forgiven’.

^{page 111 note 9} The Golden Rule occurs in its negative form in Didache, and positive in Matthew.

^{page 111 note 10} Tertullian (De Praescr. 41) also quotes this in a Eucharistic context; later ‘the holy things to the holy’ becomes a liturgical formula before the distribution of the elements. The original context of the Gospel saying can only be conjectured; it may well be connected with the rabbinic comparison of the heathen to clogs and swine. Matthew seems to use it to qualify the commandment of 7.1: the disciple must exercise some discrimination in matters of preaching and teaching.

^{page 111 note 11} ‘Hosanna, like Hallelujah, belonged to the language of the Christian cultus which they knew, and there it had lost its meaning of “deliver” (an expression of praise and not a cry of prayer). Matthew's dative and Did. 10.6 all point in this direction.’ Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew. Lund, 2, 1968, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 12} The unforgivable sin is applied in the Didache to the ‘discerning of spirits’, the act of judging prophets when they make inspired utterance. C1. I Corinthians 12.10; 14.29 where it seems to be a gift of the Spirit, and not blasphemous.

^{page 112 note 13} In face of the problem of detecting false prophets in early Christianity, a variety of criteria are suggested, including: ‘whether they really confess Jesus as Lord and serve the good of the community as a whole (1 Corinthians 12.1–3, 7); whether they confess the orthodox faith that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4.2); their relationship to the community (Hennas, Commandments 11.7–16); whether they agree with Paul (so-called 3 Corinthians 1.2–5; 3.34–9); whether what they prophesy comes to pass (Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 2.6–11).’ But Matthew and Didache agree in emphasising the criterion of ‘general ethical conduct.’ (Quotation from Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Matthew. London, 1976, p. 179.)Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 14} In Patristic writing up to Irenaeus only the parable of the Sower is referred to distinctly (cf. influence on the imagery of Hernias); otherwise only the final words are given without a suggestion of the parable with which they are linked. Moule, C. F. D. (‘The Use of Parables and Sayings as Illustrative Material in Early Christian Catechesis’. JTS N. S. 3 (1952), 75–79)CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that actual parables were used, but this material lies below the surface of the text and is not transmitted by this type of teaching. A. Jülicher explained the reluctance of the Fathers to use the parables as due to the abuse of the parables by gnostics (Die Gleichnisreden Jesu I (1910), 2O3f.).

^{page 113 note 15} E. Schweizer, op. cit., pp. 17, 182.

^{page 113 note 16} Didache 9.4. The relationship between these Eucharistic prayers and possible Jewish models, such as the Grace after meals or the prayer for the restoration of Israel, appears complex and does not exclude local Christian contributions to the phraseology.

^{page 113 note 17} e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Pseudo-Clementine Epistles, the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse of Peter from Nag Hammadi.

^{page 114 note 18} La Didaché. Paris, 1958, pp. 105ff.Google Scholar Audet noticed in Didache 13 a variation between instructions using the second person singular (13.3, 5–7) and the second person plural (13.4). The interpolated passages-tu, Audet believes, also represent a different theology from the passages-vous. But it is doubtful whether such characterisations as a casuistic tendency or a special connexion with the Law could stand up without the grammatical distinction; and the basis for this in chapter 13 is only two plural verbs in 13.4.

^{page 114 note 19} Didache 11.3; 15.1.

^{page 114 note 20} cf. e.g. Theissen, G., The First Followers of Jesus. London, 1978.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 21} S. Clement of Rome — The Two Epistles to the Corinthians (Pt. 1 of Apostolic Fathers). London/Cambridge, 1869, pp. 128f.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 22} I Clement 42.4.

^{page 117 note 23} Matthew uses reflective quotations which follow the narratives, but the quotation can influence the wording of the narrative itself. E. Schweizer's conclusion (op. cit., p.27) — ‘We are not dealing with an illustration of Scripture by reference to contemporary events, like that practised by the Jewish monks of Qumran, but the reverse: the present story of Jesus is illuminated on the basis of previous Scripture’ — needs to be modified by comparison with Black, M., ‘The Christological Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament’. NTS 18 (1971), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 118 note 24} Didache 14.3.